IT LOOKS JUST LIKE a REAL MOVIE: IT "STARS" 3-TIME OSCAR® NOMINEESIGOURNEY WEAVERand PREVIOUS RAZZIE® "WINNER" BRUCE WILLIS. IT's SET in EUROPE and FEATURES GUN-PLAY, CAR-and-CYCLE CHASE SCENES, and ALL ther ELEMENTS of...WELL, a BOURNE SEQUEL.

BUT LOOK a LITTLE CLOSER and YOU'LL DISCOVER IT WAS "PRE-RELEASED" ALL OVER the WORLD by SUMMIT "ENTERTAINMENT" (the COMPANY BEHIND the TWILIGHT MOVIES) WAY BEFORE ITS OPENING HERE. YOU'LL SEE THAT CRIX at ROTTEN TOMATOESARE GOING ABOUT NINE-to-ONE NEGATIVE with THEIR REVIEWS. AND EVENTUALLY, YOU'LL GET a WHIFF of the UNMISTABLE STENCH of ROTTING TURKEY MEAT.

Willis seems to be hit-and-miss with his choices lately -- he does two or three crummy projects (Expendables 2, anyone?) for every fun/good movie (3 of the 4 Die Hard movies are great popcorn entertainment). Weaver, however, seems to be on a losing streak. Other than the TV series mentioned above (which I will now try to see) her recent projects, lest we forget, include a prominent role in Taylor Lautner's hideous Abduction (for which I think she should have been a Worst Supporting Actress Razzie nominee).

What's wrong with Hollywood that they keep on casting 60 year olds as "action heroes," but can't find suitable projects for talented women once they pass 40??

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: There is one exception to that "talented women over 40" rule -- But only one -- Meryl Streep.

I, too, was impressed with Weaver's work in POLITICAL ANIMALS (which was also, in addition to being terrifically acted, brilliantly written) and am puzzled why someone capable of being as compelling as Sigourney is clearly capable of being keeps winding up in crap like this and ABDUCTION...

Considering the mentioning of Sigourney Weaver, I assume being on the ballots for Worst Supporting Actress this year is inevitable.

I need to ask, why no mention of Henry Cavill? He is technically the main star of this movie, AND he is soon going to be the new Superman. Granted, he's not a true notable name yet, but he should atleast be recognized for the time being.

And, yeah, I consider Bruce a definite lock for a Worst Supporting Actor nomination for this and Expendables 2. Looper is also possible, but it depends on how well the movie is received and such.

I did offer a theory in my posting above -- Namely that Weaver does garbage like Abduction and this stupid movie (both of which I bet paid her pretty well!) so she can afford to take a role like the one she did so well with on USA cable.

Glad to hear Head Razz also liked Political Animals and, the more I think about it, the more I am accepting of Sigourney doing B.S. movies so she can do great TV. It's an unfortunate trade-off, but if it results in stuff as good as that miniseries, it may be worth it...

Japan is one of the few countries outside the US where this has also not yet played -- IMDb sez it's due to open here in October. But I also noticed that the IMDb User Rating on this (with over 5,200 votes) is below 5 (on a scale of 1-to-10) so its Razzie prospects look promising.

Just from looking at stills from this movie on various sites around the Net, it looks to me like we should be discussing Cavill as a potential Worst Actor contender for this -- He looks like the kind of empty-headed hunk we perpetually nominate in that category. Since MAN OF STEEL is apparently not due out 'till 2013, he could maybe get back-to-back Worst Actor nods!

She was on the Nominating Ballot last year for ABDUCTION. Wow! 2 back-to-back BOURNE rip-offs!

Originally posted by davecampbell

Weaver, however, seems to be on a losing streak. Other than the TV series mentioned above (which I will now try to see) her recent projects, lest we forget, include a prominent role in Taylor Lautner's hideous Abduction (for which I think she should have been a Worst Supporting Actress Razzie nominee).

Actually, Willis being considered depends on him. Although people complained when Jessica Alba won for 4 movies (even though I thought 2 of them weren'tbad), her performance in MACHETE was also considered weak (not enough to ruin the movie). If LOOPER is good, but Willis' performance is bad, he should still be considered for it and maybe for this.

Originally posted by oiram

Yeah, Bruce is a definite lock for Worst Supporting Actor for this and Expendables 2. Looper is possible, but it depends on how well the movie is received and such.

Just watched it. It starts out nicely with the main character Will arriving at an airport in Spain and being picked up by his old man. He gets a concerning phone call. His dad puts on an angry face, and you can sense immediately the tension between them. The family, including the brother and his girlfriend, is having dinner on their boat, but Will is stressed since his company went broke. The next day the go on a boat trip, Will leaves the boat to step on land for a sec. When he comes back, the boat has vanished. He runs around panicking, asking people if they saw where the boat went, but noone understands him or saw anything. So far the movie was on the right track, but went downhill from there. I would like to express my concern about the next Superman movie. Maybe I just enjoyed Christopher Reeve's Superman too much. I wasn't impressed with Cavill's performance in Immortals, and this is the second time where I feel his performance is too soft. You really get to see his acting skills, and while clean portrayed, it's doesn't come across as really badass. It's not terrible or laughable, it just has no impact.Secondly, what's with the camera and the editing?? I swear, the left and right shaking while the camera man is walking pulls you right out of the film. So does the editing, at one point it looks like exactly the same take of Cavill is shown twice. What the...?Bruce Willis is Bruce Willis. Always.the.same.I don't know if the movie would make it into my bottom five though. Have to think about it.

Jeremy Jahns and me bring up simular points for a reason. The Superman question and the camera thing really stand out in the worst way, the whole story is on a down path after the family vanishes. Those who haven't seen it but want to compare, the movie is basically Abduction with chasing after a briefcase instead of a phone.

Vits, I had to think about it. I didn't hate the acting. Weaver and Willis present themselves no different than they always have. I can't say they annoyed the sh*t out of me like Nick Swardson or Sofia Vergara in supporting roles. Even Cavill, it's more of a completely forgettable thing.

In my opinion what really deserves punishment is the screenplay. A mess like that including idiotic characters should never make it on screen. So, FYC: Worst Screenplay for John Petro and Scott Wiper.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou can vote in polls in this forum